On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 09:07:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:27:36 +0200, Joerg Roedel said: > > > (I assume you are speaking of the position of the 3 in the header). The > > RFC is not clear at this point. It defines that the first 4 bits in the > > 16 bit Ethernet header MUST be 0011. But it don't defines the > > byteorder of that 16 bit word nor if the least or most significant bit > > comes first. > > Unless stated otherwise, it's pretty safe to assume that all "on the wire" > data > mentioned in an RFC is in 'network byte order'. That's why hton*() and > ntoh*() > functions exist...
Yes. Thats what the OpenBSD people did :-) The problem with the header is the bitorder. The OpenBSD people assumed that the least significant bits come first in the 16-bit header. > Is there something in the RFC that suggests that a byte order other than > 'network order' is possible/acceptable there? No. The RFC states nothing at all about byte- or bitorder. That is why the RFC is ambigious at this point. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
